Randolph v. Chisholm

Appellate Court of Illinois

Randolph v. Chisholm

29 Ill. App. 172, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 86

DecidedSeptember 21, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ill. App. 172 (Randolph v. Chisholm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randolph v. Chisholm, 29 Ill. App. 172, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 86 (Ill. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Conger, J.

This case was formerly before this court and is reported in 21 Ill. App. 312, where a statement of the facts can he found.

After the cause was remanded a trial was had and a decree rendered in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

The principal objection to the decree is, as claimed by appellants, that no title is shown in Randolph to the lot in question at the time of making the contract for the repairs to the mill. The evidence shows at least that he was in possession, claiming title, and hence such interest as he may have had was subject to the lien.

The second assignment of error is that “the court erred in rendering a decree against F. F. Randolph by default, when he had a demurrer undisposed of.” As Randolph is no party to the appeal it is not necessary to notice this point; the error, if any it be, can not be urged by one not-affected by it.

The decree of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI